The 1824 election saw a crisis that may have meaning forrnours soon to come. With the Virginia dynasty at an end, therernwere now four presidential candidates, and the Electoral Collegernhad registered no majority. The politicians’ machinationsrnthen kicked into gear—Henry Clay on behalf of John QuincyrnAdams, Martin Van Buren and various other sleazy operatorsrnfor General Jackson, and many others.rnIn the House, 13 states were needed to elect a President.rnTwelve, after much wheeling and dealing, were for Adams, includingrnsome which had favored Jackson, who had the largestrnplurality, in the canvass. The New York delegation, thanks tornVan Buren, was equally divided, with one undecided. The undecidedrnwas Stephen Van Rensselaer, a wealthy fool of the NelsonrnRockefeller type who had originally supported Crawford,rnnow out of the running.rnBesieged by Adams and Jackson advocates, the old manrnprayed while the count was being taken. When he opened hisrneyes it was revealed to him that Adams should be President—rnand so he was. There followed one of the most beleagueredrnand divisive administrations in American history, which led tornthe rapid formation of competing political parties—partiesrncompeting less on principles than on personalities, spoils, andrnorganization. Thus was set the basic text of American politicalrndiscourse, the gift of Van Buren to the democratic process: thernpolitician who seeks the middle, is all things to all men, pretendsrnthat divisive issues do not exist, and gives a plausible butrnnoncommittal answer to every question.rnThe Lincoln crisis gives us another historical lesson. Thoughrna clear winner in 1860 in the Electoral College, Lincoln hadrnslightly less than 40 percent of the popular vote, more narrowlyrnconcentrated than in any election before or since. Clearly a majorityrnof the American people never favored his hardline policies,rnwhich led to war and social revolution. We ought to givernsome thought to exactly what is meant by government of, by,rnand for the people.rnIn fact, glancing back over American history, very few of thernlargest and most decisive acts have been taken by means of realrnmajority rule. How often has the peace candidate inauguratedrnwar shortly after his election, prior to rather than as a consequencernof majority consensus? And no Southerner can forgetrnReconstruction, with the qualified barred from the pollingrnplaces, the unqualified marshaled to vote, dishonest officialsrnroutinely certifying fraudulent election returns, and the presencernof military intimidation. Indeed, it is clear that Samuel J.rnTilden was elected President in 1876 and not Rutherford B,rnI layes, who was sworn in nonetheless.rnin 1824, 1844, 1848, 1856, 1860, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888,rn1892,1912, 1916,1948,1960,1968, and 1992, Presidents werernelected without a majority, and in 1836, 1852, 1976, and 1980,rnthe majority was less than one percent. After a number of thesernnarrow elections, there followed great and irrevocable decisions.rnWe need to find ways of determining firmer and truerrnmajorities and mandates—of taking the real sense of the peoplernrather than abiding by the deceitful choices offered by partyrnand media hacks.rnOne need is to derail the present party system and forcerna more honest deliberation of public issues. Possibly the Americanrnpeople are already moving in that direction. Even morernimportant is the need to devolve decision-making back tornplaces where the will of the people can really be known andrneffected.rnTIRED OF LIES? READrnA PUBLICATION OFrnTHE ROCKFORD INSTITUTErn74 pp., paper, $10.00rn(shipping & handling included)rnTo order by credit card, call:rn1-800-397-8160rnOr send cheek or money order in thernamount of $10.00 to:rn24/CHRONICLESrnrnrn